This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
First world reproduction is irresponsible from a globally humanitarian perspective
> Reasons for reproduction:
1. To continue one's bloodline
2. To carry out a socio-psychological project undertaken to affirm one's own ability to see a human to fruition in social, economic, academic (etc) climates.
> Reasons for adopting children:
1. To carry out a socio-psychological project undertaken to affirm one's own ability to see a human to fruition in social, economic, academic (etc) climates.
2. Provide stable living conditions for children, already born, who live in abject poverty.
3. Keep the global population under control
----------
I think the reasons for adopting children outweigh the reasons for reproduction.
By reproducing and not adopting you are actively avoiding a solution to poverty, and perpetuating global problems.
Steve C
First-world consumerism, waste & warfare is much much more the problem.
Your #2 "provide stable living conditions for children" only makes the problem worse if you bring the child here - only to lavish on them an array of products, services & lifestyle that will do damage to those left behind-&-below.
I think that by reproducing one can actively raise a conscious responsible caring child.
I think a better solution to poverty is to pay fair wages, and keep in mind that all our "stuff" has to come from, (and return to), a limited ecosystem.
David Hamilton 50+
David Hamilton 50+
I'll start with capitalism, socialism, in absolutist terms. In a capitalist society, with no safety net, again something that does not exist, if you have 5 children and no job... they all die, or you are forced to beg on the street. In a more sociallized society, strangely enough, as with a monarchy, the state takes care of your children, but puts you to work. The huge boom in population, is mostly a result of monarchial, and communist philosophy, that we're all in this together, united under a common good. The closer you are to a capitalist society, the less children people have, the closer you are to a communal society the more children people can have, because the state will invest and make good workers out of them.
My point here, is that to say first world reproduction is irresponsible, while most first world countries are closer to a capitalist society then their competitors, and because of this have way less children... Is to ignore the fact that second and third world reproduction, is much more rampant, and much more irresponsible from a humanitarian perspective. You can only compare us with other people you see, not ideals, no one's ideal.
You ignore cognition in the sense that, creating the illusion, that people can have more children than they can feed... is bad. People cannot have more children then they can feed, they must control themselves, or they will starve. Encouraging adoption is necessary, but it's not irresponsible to have a kid you can feed, it's irresponsible to have one you can't. Condoms exist. Adoption is a safety net kind people offer the irresponsible.
Zdenek Smith 100+
http://www.ted.com/conversations/39/why_do_so_many_think_that_popu.html
I disagree that first world population growth is irresponsible behavior. Every country went through that stage. I think you need to blame lack of education and also corporations and governments in developing nations that in many cases pursue their own interests in gaining access to resources in poor countries rather than interests of that country's population.
I think there are many reasons for having children. One is to enjoy life with family without any other particular goal.
Adoption is not decreasing population but quite the opposite. With adoption many children do not die but rather prosper with their new parents.
lynn eschbach 30+
Gerald O'brian 50+
So I rely on reproduction instead.
But don't you worry about global problems, I'm raising problem solvers.
Sabin Muntean 30+